New SEO Term: Google BLOOP

Oct 13, 2011 • 8:40 am | comments (19) by twitter Google+ | Filed Under Google Search Engine Optimization
 

Google BLOOPSince I am offline today, figured it would be fun to post a new SEO term I spotted in the forums today and tomorrow.

Today's new term is BLOOP!

As mentioned in a WebmasterWorld thread, BLOOP stands for BackLink Over Optimization Penalty.

Yes, when you have way to many backlinks, likely with too similar anchor text. Can it lead to a penalty? If so, name it BLOOP!

This webmaster said:

For the first time I trusted a SEO-Company and what they did was idiot link building, resulting in a BLOOP Penalty.

I told them already that they should remove immediately all links they built.

What are the best steps after a BLOOP Penalty?

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

Note: This story was written earlier this week and scheduled to be published today.

Previous story: Spelling & Grammar Not A Direct Google Ranking Factor
 

Comments:

Demon Lee

10/13/2011 01:03 pm

When will people learn that a 'back-link' is only any good to your Search Rankings IF IT IS RELEVENT to your business, getting back links from hundreds of non relevant sites is POINTLESS anyway.

Raghu

10/13/2011 01:25 pm

 This is not a new term, I have already heard this one.. FYI http://www.searchenginejournal.com/how-many-google-penalties-are-there/6949/

Jon

10/13/2011 01:37 pm

Is there a definitive answer  about whether too many/too optimized backlinks can cause a penalty? We've know that they can be devalued but can they cause a penno? The first question people ask is always "Well coudn't you just point spammy links to your competitor?" and I have no answer I'm confident of giving..

Michael Curtis

10/13/2011 01:50 pm

Demon - we will learn that GOOGLE does. I've worked at both ends of the spectrum, and I can say confidently that while relevancy is a score for links, it is not THE only metric. I've built backlink profiles (This is since Panda, albeit the early days) off absolutely ridiculous sites and still gotten rankings. When your on a tiny budget trying to optimise for a tiny business, it's sometimes the only way you can get results for that client. Relevancy is a score, and relevant links will perform better and are, in my opinion, worth the extra effort of aquiring. But blanket statements like 'getting back links from hundreds of non relevant sites is POINTLESS anyway." are simply not true. I don't think Google have got their Relevency algorithm to the point that there are an acceptable level of false positives, and until they do they're not going to put an infinite amount of stock in it.

seogabs

10/13/2011 03:37 pm

hhehehee takes me back to 2004 :) omg I'm old  http://forums.seochat.com/google-optimization-7/joe-bob-s-bloop-theory-17061.html

josh bachynski

10/13/2011 04:10 pm

new #seo term BLOOP (backlink over optimization penalty) - does this mean that after every panda update we will have a blooper role? #seochat #prwebchat

SEO Expert | SEO

10/13/2011 05:31 pm

Its an old news...i think every seo knew this

sandeep kumar

10/13/2011 05:45 pm

BLOOP.......nice world......

Wesley

10/14/2011 12:25 am

This is not true.  I have seen the results time and time again:  Links within sites with completely irrelevant content providing value to the site linked.    The difference between theory and practice is greater in theory than it is in practice!!   TRUST what IS proven in practice, not just what someone says the THEORY is..

Lovekills_s

10/14/2011 04:45 am

Way way way too old barry :D .. nevertheless important!

Ameet

10/14/2011 06:18 am

I second Michael's view. My competitor beat me to the #1 spot with the "so called" "garbage" links. My site is bigger, my content is better but while I spent a lot of time and money to find good relevant sites for back links my competitor simply did a lot of profile backlinks and massive article submissions to beat me hands down. May be one day Google is going to spot the difference but the question is - when? And what do i do / Wait and loose money? Or try those "not recommended by experts" link building strategies? I think I know the answer to my question.

Robert

10/14/2011 03:21 pm

That is a kule new term for a penalty that's been around for a while.

Robert

10/14/2011 03:24 pm

The bloop falls under the oop, almost identical.

Michael

10/15/2011 05:55 am

Gotta admit, I ever heard this term before. The concept is a tough one for all to deal with. How many more acronyms do we need in the industry? 

Aryan

10/24/2011 06:54 am

It's an old news. I think every SEO and Link Builder know this.

SEO Professional

10/25/2011 10:55 am

Yeah, must agree, nothing new here.

Dubai Property

11/27/2011 10:15 am

This simply means that for natural link building one should consider not being obsessed with exact matching anchor texts.

Northcutt

01/13/2012 07:05 pm

Definitely not true.  How many links to Google.com come from sites about search engines?  It's not just big sites either, how many links to your local BBB come from other sites about business reviews?  Do you believe that Google throws out a link to you from CNN because their site isn't dedicated to what you do?   Relevancy is a perk, and often important as a part of your backlink portfolio.  Links that come from sites without relevancy absolutely count, however, and anyone that's put any real link building into action should have measurable results to back that up.  

RussiAmore dating

01/24/2012 03:13 pm

Relevancy is only 1 of hundreds (maybe more) algorithms to determine amount of link-juice will get recipient...

blog comments powered by Disqus